... To help with the complex issue of the use of "violent" force, some have
turned to a set of principles or a when-to-go-to-war doctrine. "Follow these
directions and you can't go wrong." There is, however, no fixed set of rules
for the use of military force. To set one up is dangerous. First, it destroys
the ambiguity we might want to exist in our enemy's mind regarding our intentions.
Unless part of our strategy is to destroy that ambiguity, it is usually helpful
to keep it intact.
Second, having a fixed set of rules for how you will go to war is like saying
you are always going to use the elevator in the event of fire in your apartment
building. Surely enough, when the fire comes the elevator will be engulfed in
flames or, worse, it will look good when you get in it only to fill with smoke
and flames and crash a few minutes later. But do you stay in your apartment
and burn to death because your plans call for using the elevator to escape and
the elevator is untenable? No, you run to the stairs, an outside fire escape
or a window. In short, your plans to escape should be governed by the circumstances
of the fire when it starts.

When a "fire" starts that might require committing armed forces, we need to
evaluate the circumstances. Relevant questions include: Is the political objective
we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other
nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At
what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that
we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might
be the consequences?

As an example of this logical process, we can examine the assertions of those
who have asked why President Bush did not order our forces on to Baghdad after
we had driven the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We must assume that the political
objective of such an order would have been capturing Saddam Hussein. Even if
Hussein had waited for us to enter Baghdad, and even if we had been able to
capture him, what purpose would it have served? And would serving that purpose
have been worth the many more casualties that would have occurred? Would it
have been worth the inevitable follow-up: major occupation forces in Iraq for
years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad?
Fortunately for America, reasonable people at the time thought not. They still
do.

When the political objective is important, clearly defined and understood, when
the risks are acceptable, and when the use of force can be effectively combined
with diplomatic and economic policies, then clear and unambiguous objectives
must be given to the armed forces. These objectives must be firmly linked with
the political objectives. We must not, for example, send military forces into
a crisis with an unclear mission they cannot accomplish -- such as we did when
we sent the U.S. Marines into Lebanon in 1983. We inserted those proud warriors
into the middle of a five-faction civil war complete with terrorists, hostage-takers,
and a dozen spies in every camp, and said, "Gentlemen, be a buffer." The results
were 241 Marines and Navy personnel and a U.S. withdrawal from the troubled
area.

When force is used deftly--in smooth coordination with diplomatic and economic
policy--bullets may never have to fly. Pulling triggers should always be toward
the end of the plan, and when those triggers are pulled all of the sound analysis
I have just described should back them up.

Over the past three years the U.S. armed forces have been used repeatedly to
defend our interests and to achieve our political objectives. In Panama a dictator
was removed from power. In the Philippines the use of limited force helped save
a democracy. In Somalia a daring night raid rescued our embassy. In Liberia
we rescued stranded international citizens and protected our embassy. In the
Persian Gulf a nation was liberated. Moreover we have used our forces for humanitarian
relief operations in Iraq, Somalia, Bangladesh, Russia and Bosnia.

All of these operations had one thing in common: they were successful. There
have been no Bay of Pigs, failed desert raids, Beirut bombings or Vietnams.
Today American troops around the world are protecting the peace in Europe, the
Persian Gulf, Korea, Cambodia, the Sinai and western Sahara. They have brought
relief to Americans at home here in Florida, Hawaii and Guam. Ironically enough,
the American people are getting a solid return on their defense investment even
as from all corners of the nation come shouts for imprudent reductions that
would gut their armed forces.

The reason for our success is that in every instance we have carefully matched
the use of military force to our political objectives. We owe it to the men
and women who go in harm's way to make sure that this is always the case and
that their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes.

Military men and women recognize more than most people that not every situation
will be crystal clear. We can and do operate in murky, unpredictable circumstances.
But we also recognize that military force is not always the right answer. If
force is used imprecisely or out of frustration rather than clear analysis,
the situation can be made worse.

Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not
always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest
that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited
attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a
new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more
bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach
to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and
women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This is not to
argue that the use of force is restricted to only those occasions where the
victory of American arms will be resounding, swift and overwhelming. It is simply
to argue that the use of force should be restricted to occasions where it can
do some good and where the good will outweigh the loss of lives and other costs
that will surely ensue. Wars kill people. That is what makes them different
from all other forms of human enterprise.

When President Lincoln gave his second inaugural address he compared the Civil
War to the scourge of God, visited upon the nation to compensate for what the
nation had visited upon its slaves. Lincoln perceived war correctly. It is the
scourge of God. We should be very careful how we use it. When we do use it,
we should not be equivocal: we should win and win decisively. If our objective
is something short of winning--as in our air strikes into Libya in 1986--we
should see our objective clearly, then achieve it swiftly and efficiently.

I am preaching to the choir. Every reasonable American deplores the resort to
war. We wish it would never come again. If we felt differently, we could lay
no claim whatsoever to being the last, best hope of earth. At the same time
I believe every American realizes that in the challenging days ahead, our wishes
are not likely to be fulfilled. In those circumstances where we must use military
force, we have to be ready, willing and able. Where we should not use force
we have to be wise enough to exercise restraint. I have finite faith in the
American people's ability to sense when and where we should draw the line. ...